73 Reds

Debatable, yes, but danger is all relative. How dangerous is it to vote for policies you believe are unsuitable? Personally the last election was easy for me from a policy standpoint. And as an aside I don't usually care about congressional hearings because they are typically more grandstanding than anything useful. However, I have always found Supreme Court nomination hearings utterly fascinating. The democratic candidate's performance at Justice Kavanaugh's judicial hearing was one of the most embarrassing, offensive displays by a public official I have ever seen. I would call it, and her "dangerous" and thank the Democrats for hiding Biden's mental deficiencies until it was too late for him to be replaced.

I really think you may be confusing the apparent divide in Congress with that of the general population. Remember, everything you hear and see in Congress is mostly for show. Many members actually get along and work together. But politics requires each of them to take a side in every issue and the political system here as it is, tends to exaggerate even the smallest of differences. To me one problem stems from extremists on both sides. On the left, the extremists have become far more outspoken and have attracted what I consider like-minded extremists in the general population, who are equally as outspoken. This is a relatively new phenomena as to the degree of leftist extremism. But it is easy to mistake extremism and outspokenness with popularity. I tend to believe that the majority of the US population is not far from center on most issues, perhaps more folks even a little center-right due to overall increasing prosperity and less young people. Often the ways that you and I would address some of the current issues and problems of our time are far different than proposed responses by either political party, particularly if such problems were local and not national and international. Trump attracted a more nationalistic, pro-US audience because he correctly pointed out that we spend a lot of taxpayer money in unpopular places and on unpopular causes at the expense of the average US citizen. This is hardly a comment worth debating. Likewise, few would argue against eliminating fraud, waste and abuse, removing illegal criminals, and simply re-establishing the former standards and values on which the US has always existed. We can argue over the definition of what is "fraud", "waste" or even an "illegal" but when the former status quo was doing entirely nothing to address these issues, Trump's election was hardly a surprise, especially when you consider his opponent. For the record, it is easy to understand international dismay at issues like tariffs or even his apparent position on Greenland. Yet it would be difficult to envision any proposed or enacted tariffs will remain in place once our leader(s) believe that any resulting compromise is better than before. Some may argue the point, but Trump does have some very intelligent people around him. His VP's life-story is nothing short astonishing. He crosses party lines to bring in what he believes are the best people for their jobs. Controversial? Of course, but rarely does anything of significance get accomplished without fresh ideas and a little controversy.

John, let me help you. But let's focus on the issues rather than the person.

Well, its interesting; my wife (who is well right of me) and I have mostly younger, left-leaning friends (unfortunately my older friends are dying off far too quickly). They are all bright, well educated and successful. I ignore just about all social media but she follows our friends and their posts on social media. A few of them rage daily about Trump in ways that I could hardly imagine these people speaking about anyone, let alone communicating directly with us. Its almost become a nightly ritual at dinner that she reads me some of the more outlandish posts (we just laugh). Yet they never talk about these issues with us, even though we've spent long periods together, often traveling with some of them and their kids over the years and we remain good friends. I truly wonder how much social media helps breed irrational feelings in otherwise intelligent people. It can't be healthy and there have to be so many more worthwhile matters to focus on.

John, the "Buffetts" of the World are still here. They understand history and have a moral compass. They also pick their battles. They don't resort to calling POTUS childish names and fixating on every word or action. They see all sides of an issue and a person, not merely the side they want to see. Like everyone, Trump has his faults. But he also successfully became US President twice, overcame an unwinnable lawfare campaign, long ago developed a successful brand name, had a successful television and marketing career, wrote multiple best-selling books, raised intelligent, well-spoken children, and is perhaps the most energetic individual of his age that I have ever witnessed. Outspoken critics ought to ask themselves whether they have accomplished even a small fraction of the above.

Yes, voters rejected some of the extremist policies of the last administration. Ironically, voters were also perhaps more informed about the views and future actions of both candidates in the last election than any other election in my lifetime. Which is why I remain so surprised at the alarmist reactions of many today.

And me yours!

Respectfully (again), your lifetime master's in counseling may have missed the mark. In any event, I look at, and vote for policies, not people/tenants. Few would argue we had poor choices last POTUS election and several prior to that. Nonetheless, policy, direction, and moral values are what withstand elections and those are what matter most.

Fox would probably not appreciate the views of a politically non affiliated libertarian with a conscience.

@Dealraker You seem to have far too much confidence in the power of one individual who rents space for 4 years and no confidence whatsoever in a thriving experiment that has prospered for nearly 250 years and counting. Respectfully, if and when one such individual dominates one's mindset, perhaps it is time to reassess.

OK, without boring anyone here with a long story, I was never a good academic (student) but usually good at reading people. My goal when starting was to meet successful people who I could get to know and hopefully convince to do business with me. It took some time but ultimately I met the retired CFO of a Fortune 500 company doing private equity and he entrusted me to find and manage deals that we could partner on (he initially put up most of the money). He introduced me to some of his business partners and professionals who they used - people who were highly competent in their roles as CPAs, realtors, mortgage brokers, business brokers, etc... These people led me to other connections in the community where I have done business for many years. The game-changer came during the GFC when we were highly liquid and few others were.

Well, my advice would be to focus on your strengths and interests. Mine was never stock selection - I don't have the time, patience or accounting background necessary to do what Buffett and other successful stock pickers do every day poring over 10Qs and 10Ks with a fine tooth comb; in fact I'd be immediately bored. As a very long term investor, I care more about the need by the public for the products/services being sold, monopolistic tendencies of the company, management integrity, capital allocation skills, a solid balance sheet with no unneeded debt, and a history of profitability. If/when the price is sensible and as capital becomes available, I'll buy shares of such companies. The goal is to retain these stocks as long as the company continues to perform well and the reason for buying shares in the first place still exists. Valuation almost never matters once I own a stock because besides taxes as Buffett has said, selling requires not one but two decisions and for my skills, I'd be hard pressed to find a better stock than the one being sold.

When I began investing in stocks they made up all my net worth, even more since I used margin back then. It probably wasn't until some of my business ventures became successful that stocks were not nearly all of my net worth. Today the RE businesses have surpassed stocks in terms of net worth but only because for the last 20 years and until very recently when I decided to slow down, most of my time, efforts and capital went into these businesses, which have become very reliable in terms of growth and yield.

Multiple ventures all real estate related: Investing, title co. and hard money lending.

Yes, learning from mistakes is important for success in almost anything. Charlie's life story was also very influential; when I left my paid position to venture out on my own his was the model I strived to emulate.

Yes, definitely. Outside of MO and then BRK, I owned mutual funds, story stocks promoted by investment newsletters, stock pumped on CNBC, etc... You name it, I tried them all. Ironically, some of the stocks I still own today came by way of silly happenstance: I learned about BRK when talking with a Rabbi from Omaha who had become a millionaire through having met and invested with Buffett. WMT came about after reading an article in a magazine about Sam Walton and the old pickup truck he drove. MSFT was the result of a college friend who got to know Bill Gates (I didn't know the first thing about computers or software when I first bought shares). I invested in HD after realizing that I spent more time and money there than almost anywhere else (being in the RE business).

Again, it was the result of learning from a lot of prior mistakes. Obviously Buffett had a great influence, which in hindsight has been more valuable than the stock.

All of my current holdings are long term, high conviction positions: BRK (early 80s), MSFT (late 80s) HD and WMT (early 90s) AAPL (early 200s) Fairfax (2021). Didn't buy any of these until long after they were established, profitable companies. Nothing fancy. These are the stocks that remain from a lot of learning from trading mishaps and other investment mistakes when I was younger. I did own MO for about 20 years starting in late 1970s (my first stock) but sold around the time of the MSA. Also own a few minor positions in a small retirement account from brief stint as a W-2 employee (COP, GILD, T, BTI, SWBI, JOE) which are the only stocks I trade for fun.

+1. Strict criteria for a stock worth owning eliminates all trading vehicles, which in my case is a good thing. If a stock does not make complete sense within 5 minutes of looking at financials, it is a pass. It also has to have a great, long term runway.

@Red Lion I tried doing this strategy 30 years ago +/-. The internal conflict was that for stocks I wanted to own and hold it didn't work. One stock ran away from me to the upside and on another occasion I was put a stock I really didn't want to own that much but the option premiums seemed too good to pass up and the stock remained a dog for several years. For me the strategy works best with stocks you may like but don't absolutely love and definitely not with any stock you wouldn't want to own for a long time. But the premiums have to justify the time, work and tax consequences if you are using taxable funds (you did say these were tax-deferred proceeds). But over time I grew bored with the process and the nickels and dimes, though they can add up, were not worth the trouble. Since those days the only options I do are short puts to try to enter a position at a specific price in lieu of a limit buy order.

That's getting a little past my pay grade but would think that since an option is an inherent right to buy the stock and more than 30 days passed from the date the option was purchased and the date initial shares were sold you should be OK but I've learned from prior experience that the IRS does not always accept what is otherwise a logical taxpayer argument. Caveat Emptor.

@RedLion I don't think the strike price matters. In fact, I also remember asking the CPA to define a "similar security" for purposes of the rule and he said that it is subject to IRS discretion. So even selling an ETF and exchanging it for a different ETF with largely the same or similar holdings could trigger the rule.

I don't believe you can do that. Though I haven't traded options in many years, wash sale rules apply to the same and even similar securities, including options. I remember inquiring about this very issue. Even using a retirement account to repurchase the same or similar stock within 30 days of (both before or after) the sale triggers the wash sale rule. As a practical matter, I remember asking a CPA how the purchase in a separate retirement account could even be tracked, and his response was "do you want to take the risk"?

Well, as I stated previously, Greenland's sovereignty should be up to its people. Doesn't mean they can't make a deal with the US which would be in both countries' best interest, which is likely the thinking of the President. I understand your point but the issue is not black and white; there is a lot of gray in between.

Sure; the words "will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" can have various meanings. In no way do those words invalidate any concurrent interests by the US which are not in conflict with stated Danish interests . Such interests can be strategic, military, involve resources and use of Greenland's vast unused lands for nearly any beneficial purpose.